ScientistMel.Comhttp://scientistmel.com
Be passionately curious...Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:37:48 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9https://i2.wp.com/scientistmel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cropped-mel.jpg?fit=32%2C32ScientistMel.Comhttp://scientistmel.com
3232This is an a podcast associated with my live streaming video show The Science Of (found on periscope and Youtube). I discuss all of the sciencey things including taking topics from listeners! I have guests on and address pseudoscience, new studies, as well as expand on different concepts! Speaking science, boosting literacy, revealing relevance, and sparking passionate curiosity...one fun show at a time!<br />
You can find me on www.scientistmel.com to submit your topics and questions!ScientistMel.ComcleanserialScientistMel.Comscienceymel@gmail.comscienceymel@gmail.com (ScientistMel.Com)Be passionately curious...ScientistMel.Comhttp://scientistmel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/heyscientistmelpod1.pnghttp://scientistmel.com
135314712Open Letter to Baraboo School District on Their Nazi Studentshttp://scientistmel.com/2018/11/25/open-letter-to-baraboo-school-district-on-their-nazi-students/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/11/25/open-letter-to-baraboo-school-district-on-their-nazi-students/#respondSun, 25 Nov 2018 20:37:48 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2366November 25, 2018 Dear Baraboo School Board, In light of the students who engaged in offensive behaviors through the use […]

In light of the students who engaged in offensive behaviors through the use of Nazi salutes in a photograph prior to a school function, I am writing this open letter as a scientist and educator who has concerns as to how this will affect teachers and the students at your schools. The district’s policies are very clear on expected behavior of students who attend your schools. I will be referencing several of your polices with links to them provided. I am also highlighting key rules and will be discussing the “free speech” excuse your board has given.

Students
1. Students shall understand that they must make choices involving value judgments,standards of conduct and courses of action.
2. Students will appreciate themselves as unique individuals, worthy of respect by
others, as well as self-respect, by discovering their strengths and realistically
accepting their liabilities.
3. Students will learn to recognize relationships between their behavior andconsequences.
4. Students will assume the responsibility and the consequences for their actions,striving to achieve self-discipline and self-control.
5. Students will be active participants in developing for themselves the structure andcontrol needed to promote a positive learning experience and lifestyle

Student Removal from Class
A teacher may temporarily dismiss a student from class for the following behaviors,
which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:
1. Dangerous or disruptive behavior that interferes with classroom instruction;
2. Possession or use of a weapon or other item that might cause bodily harm to
persons in the classroom, or threatening to use violence or weapons;
3. Under the influence of alcohol or other controlled substances or controlled
substance analogs, or otherwise in violation of district student alcohol and other
drug policies;
4. Harassment, hostile or offensive behaviors;
5. Fighting or inciting and/or encouraging a fight or disruption;
6. Disruption and intimidation caused by gang or group symbols or gestures, gang orgroup posturing to provoke altercations or confrontations;
7. Pushing or striking a student or staff member;
8. Physical appearance or attire that presents a danger to health or safety, or
interferes with classroom instruction.
9. Threats of violence, or use of intimidation, fear or force including but not limitedto verbal/physical threats.
A student may be subject to removal from classroom/ disciplinary action for other
behaviors including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
1. Stealing District property or property of others
2. Willful damage to school property/and property of others
3. Defiance of authority (willful refusal to follow directions or orders given by the
teacher)
4. Repeatedly reporting to class without bringing necessary materials to participate
in class activities
5. Possession of personal property prohibited by school rules and otherwise
disruptive to the teaching and learning of others
6. Repeated use of profanity

Our student dress code is designed to accomplish several goals:
 Maintain a safe learning environment in classes where protective or supportive
clothing is needed.
 Allow students to wear clothing of their choice that is comfortable.
 Allow students to wear clothing that expresses their self-identified gender.
 Allow students to wear religious attire without fear of discipline or discrimination.
 Prevent students from wearing clothing with offensive images or language,including profanity, hate speech, and pornography.
 Prevent students from wearing clothing with images or language depicting oradvocating violence or the use of alcohol or drugs.
 Ensure that all students are treated equitably regardless of gender/genderidentification/gender expression, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, bodytype/size, religion, and personal style.
Dress Code
1. Basic Principle: Certain body parts must be covered for all students at all times.
Clothes must be worn in a way that genitals, buttocks, midriffs, breasts, and
nipples are fully covered with opaque (neither transparent or translucent) fabric.
All items listed in the “must wear” and “may wear” categories below must meet
this basic principle.
2. Students Must Wear, while following the basic principle of Section 1 above:
 A Shirt, AND
 Bottom: Pants/Sweatpants/Shorts/Skirt/Dress/Leggings, AND
 Shoes. There may be specific requirements due to student safety regarding
appropriate footwear in certain classroom settings.
3. Students May Wear, as long as these items do not violate Section 1 above:
 Religious headwear
 Fitted pants, including opaque leggings, yoga pants, and “skinny jeans”
 Tank tops, including spaghetti straps; halter tops
 Athletic attire
4. Students Cannot Wear:
 Hats
 Items with violent language or images (e.g. weapons)
 Images or language depicting drugs or alcohol (or any illegal item or
activity)
 Hate speech, profanity, pornography
 Images of language that creates a hostile or intimidating environmentbased on any protected class or consistently marginalized groups
 Swimsuits (except as required in class or athletic practice)
 Accessories that could be considered dangerous or could be used as a
weapon
 Any item that obscures the face or ears (except as a religious observance)
 Visible underwear (visible waistbands or straps on undergarments worn
under other clothing are not a violation)
 Attire with a gang-related association
Body markings or tattoos that do not meet the above standards must be fully covered.
The wearing of outer garments and headwear will be permitted in school vehicles and at
school activities when appropriate.

Freedom of speech is what your board cited for not punishing students for blatantly engaging in offensive behavior. The Nazi salute, propaganda, and WW2 are a part of your curriculum. Baraboo students are actively taught Nazi symbolism is synonymous with some of the most horrible crimes committed in recent history. Nazi salutes coincide with the ideals of genocide of anyone who is not deemed racially superior. This is hate speech. This is a “gang symbol” from an emerging group of individuals called white nationalists (I have written about them HERE). Coincidentally the Proud Boys who have ties to the deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017,are now considered a terrorist group by the FBI.

This is not freedom of speech issue. The dress code policy, use of profanity, student expectations on promoting a conducive and positive learning environment could easily be argued that they are in violation of students’ free speech. If the board is willing to suspend students for wearing, signing, or saying anything related to hate speech, gang symbolism, encouraging oppression of marginalized groups…these boys in this picture using a worldwide symbol of hatred, torture, and death must be disciplined. By not enforcing your own policies, the board has marginalized every group of students who now feel unsafe to go to school because Nazi signs and speech is allowed.

The board is in violation of their own policies and clearly showing bias towards a demographic who historically (and in recent news) is not prosecuted and/or serve time for sex crimes, shot for their race, threatened to be fired for kneeling during a football game…I could go on. This is the example you are setting for the students who are already marginalized through society and for the male white students who are now given a free pass for promoting racism, sexism, and genocide. There will be division in every classroom now.

This is what you are telling the country’s educators. The teachers in your district now have a precedent to favor white males and give them free passes over the children who would be sent home for wearing or signing gang symbols. The board says this is a free speech issue. If this is the case, eliminate the highlighted points I have listed that are found within your own policy. This is clearly school board bias, not freedom of speech.

Last point…would you fire teachers who engage in Nazi salutes? Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. Freedom of speech is not going to jail for saying words. Reconsider your decision and hold these boys responsible for promoting oppression and school wide division…the subsequent sacrifice will be the students who now can not learn in an environment that excuses hate and marginalization of non white, straight males.

]]>http://scientistmel.com/2018/11/25/open-letter-to-baraboo-school-district-on-their-nazi-students/feed/02366The Case Against the Monsanto Verdict: Why this verdict is harmful.http://scientistmel.com/2018/08/18/the-case-against-the-monsanto-verdict-why-this-verdict-is-harmful/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/08/18/the-case-against-the-monsanto-verdict-why-this-verdict-is-harmful/#respondSat, 18 Aug 2018 21:14:19 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2344The verdict delivered in favor of Dewayne Johnson on August 10th, 2018 shook not only consumers around the world, but […]

]]>The verdict delivered in favor of Dewayne Johnson on August 10th, 2018 shook not only consumers around the world, but scientists as well. The reasons this verdict has caused concern for each community are completely different…and both responses are cause for collective concern.

In a country where the vast majority are scientifically illiterate (some including reporters), click-baity misrepresented science and health headlines already cause a stir and can even cause panic. Now courts are awarding verdicts to people who have no scientific evidence to back up their claims. We have the blind leading the blind in media and now in the court system.

What are the facts with Monsanto? There is no substantial evidence that glyphosphate causes cancer. All evidence for this link is weak. The jury members are not likely capable of understanding the complexity of cancer, risk factors, scientific evidence, as well as the fact that mouse evidence of cancer does not translate to human risk.

Your odds of developing this type of cancer is 1 in 47. Additionally,you can not prevent this type of lymphoma. It is also important to note that risk factors are not definitive in determining if you will get cancer. If this was the case, every single person who smokes cigarettes would get cancer. The general public is regularly educated on the risks of smoking, but they are not really “educated” on what risk factors actually mean. An “increased risk” does not mean you will get cancer from said risk, it means your percentage has slightly gone up.

Here we have a group of laypeople in a jury delivering a verdict who are likely scientifically illiterate and only needed to concede that the introduction of glyphosphate into his life increased his risk at any percentage (even if marginal to a normal exposure rate for every other person on the planet). The jury only needed to be convinced that an extra chemical might have tipped the balance towards developing cancer

What about animal studies? There is evidence in mouse studies to show it is carcinogenic at VERY HIGH DOSES. Essentially if you inject a mouse with a large dose of glyphosphate (not a dose any human would ever encounter in regular use), carcinogenic properties arise. Though there is evidence to show mice get cancer with a massive dose of glyphosphate, extrapolating this to humans is not wise as this rarely produces accurate results. Human and rodent metabolic pathways are so different that carcinogenicity can not be determined in humans based on rodent studies alone. Dosage is important when it comes to toxicity and carcinogenicity. Just about everything on the planet can kill you (even what someone would consider benign things…water, sugar, etc..) What it comes down to is dosage.

Now that we have the evidence and thoroughly discussed cancer as well as the lack of evidence it is caused by glyphosphate in humans, let us discuss how this verdict is harmful and irresponsible in the court system.

The big problem with this verdict is that many in the US will make the assumption that glyphosphate (RoundUp) causes cancer and Monsanto did this on purpose. Regardless of the vast majority of scientific evidence refuting this perspective, the general population is in danger of the bandwagon effect on hopping aboard the GLYPHOSPHATE CAUSES CANCER train and become susceptible to predatory pseudoscience practices. We already have the media to thank for antivaxxers and the consistent rise of measles. Now we have headlines stating a jury said Monsanto is wrong and awarded this man money for his cancer…a jury who does not understand that studies older than 5 years are not really valid, mouse studies are not the same as human studies, 89,000 families were studied with no glyphosphate effects on them, increase in risk factors does not mean confirmed cancer causation, misunderstanding of outlying (rare) statistics versus the general average, probably does not mean YES…etc…this was never going to be a “fair trial” once it got approved to continue through the court system.

We already have pseudoscience pushing groups on the GLYPHOSPHATE IS IN CEREAL OMG bandwagon utilizing scare tactics to push their agenda. There was no “peer review” with the report that was published by The Environmental Working Group who carries a “sciencey sounding name of authority” but does not actually use science to make their points. This is one of many examples to come because of this verdict.

America is scientifically illiterate and gets the majority of their science education from the news. The news plays a role in promoting bad science without fleshing out the actual science to teach the public about WHY the jury verdict is not necessarily the truth as it is not held to the same standards as scientific conclusions widely accepted in the community that has withstood multiple attempts to disprove it.

Mr. Johnson did not have to prove Roundup caused his cancer. He only needed to convince a jury that it maybe played a role if perhaps he had chosen a different line of work. It is far more likely that he would have developed this cancer anyway as there is no real way to prevent Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma as most people have no real risk factors that can be changed.

I leave you with Robert Frost…A jury is 12 persons who gets to decide who has the better lawyer.

Educate yourself. Accept all evidence…even if it is evidence you do not like.

Thank you for reading,

Scientist Mel

Edit: I am adding this statement as I want it understood that I think Mr. Johnson’s development of cancer is very sad and unfortunate. Having performed cancer research, I have sympathy for people who suffer from cancer. The above piece I wrote is focused on facts and not feelings. We can not place blame on things that have not caused our illness. My deepest sympathies go to Mr. Johnson and his family. Cancer is one of the worst biological betrayals our bodies can do to us.

]]>http://scientistmel.com/2018/08/18/the-case-against-the-monsanto-verdict-why-this-verdict-is-harmful/feed/02344Cancer Patients using Alternative Medicines at Higher Risk for Deathhttp://scientistmel.com/2018/07/20/cancer-patients-using-alternative-medicines-at-higher-risk-for-death/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/07/20/cancer-patients-using-alternative-medicines-at-higher-risk-for-death/#respondFri, 20 Jul 2018 17:31:28 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2337Alternative medicine is a big business resulting in billions of dollars of income per year in the US alone. By […]

]]>Alternative medicine is a big business resulting in billions of dollars of income per year in the US alone. By 2025, it is expected to be worth $197 billion according to a Grand View Research report. Alternative medicine is in no way a new venue or avenue to generate income from consumers. Charlatans have been peddling snake oil since the dawn of commerce.

While the FDA, modern medicine, and other regulatory bodies have tried to expose alternative medicine for what it is, people still continue to gamble on snake oil and the like as a means to become more involved in their health care. In 2016, Americans spent $30.2 billion on alternative medicine.Of this amount, $1.9 billion was spent on children. Clearly pseudoscience is a big business. What is important to note is that this is also a reflection of a science literacy crisis within the US. These alternative medicine approaches are not bound to the strict rigor of peer review, government regulations, ethics boards, as well as multiple trials to show that a “treatment” is more effective than a placebo effect.

There is a real danger of death among Americans with the sparkly “quick fix” and “what your doctor will not tell you” click bait titles luring people to have a distrust of modern medicine especially those who have the word “cancer” in their diagnosis.

A recent study investigated cancer patients to determine their risk of death through the use of alternative therapies versus conventional medicine. The study examined patients with breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancers. The study focused on diagnoses from Jan. 1st, 2004 – Dec. 31st, 2013. The researchers measured overall outcome, survival, adherence to treatments, and patient characteristics. This study involved nearly 2 million people. What they found is that cancer patients who used alternative therapies were less likely to seek conventional medical therapies. This resulted in a 2-fold (twice as likely) increase risk of death for patients who engaged in alternative therapies versus patients who sought established medical treatment.

Alternative medicine, while persisting at being a big business, is more likely to kill you than cure you.

Alternative medicine is not bound to proof and scrutiny like conventional medicine. Conventional medicine is in no way perfect, but it is a far better option than spending money towards an assured steady and rapid decline towards death. Conventional medical treatments for cancer are not shiny, bedazzled, click baity, and a “quick fix”. They are often brutal, rigorous, scary looking, and not guaranteed. Alternative medicine is not guaranteed either. However, your chances of survival increase with proven medical treatments over the snake oil peddlers who make substantial amounts of money ushering you swiftly to your death.

Alternative medicine peddles false hope and in many ways preys upon the most vulnerable. The scientific literacy crisis we have in the US further fuels the distrust in our modern medical treatments while boosting the big business of alternative medicine. The best defense is staying educated and aware of current discovery.

Want to know how to spot pseudoscience? Check out my episode of #TheScienceOf Pseudoscience and call the bluff on alternative medicine!

]]>http://scientistmel.com/2018/07/20/cancer-patients-using-alternative-medicines-at-higher-risk-for-death/feed/02337Narcissists – A Spectrum of Abusershttp://scientistmel.com/2018/05/13/narcissists-a-spectrum-of-abusers/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/05/13/narcissists-a-spectrum-of-abusers/#respondSun, 13 May 2018 22:50:57 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2300I have often discussed narcissists on my show in varying forms. I have mentioned their roles in trolling, social media […]

]]>I have often discussed narcissists on my show in varying forms. I have mentioned their roles in trolling, social media addiction, and as online predators/stalkers. Much of what I will be discussing here will be more of a collection of what I have fleshed out in my videos regarding what narcissists do in these forms as well as how harmful they can be. I will also discuss ways to protect yourself when dealing with narcissists and what to do if you have an active narcissist in your life trying to harm you.

My sources can be found within the text in hyperlinks. Please feel free to download any of my slides in relation to my previously mentioned shows under the resources section of my website. There is a lot of information available on narcissists and I have links to the sources I have utilized. Additionally, much I am discussing is what I have learned from personal experiences as well as from therapists.

The first thing we need to do is understand narcissism.

I will refer to the victims of narcissists as “human tools” not because I blame victims for being preyed upon by narcissists, but to reinforce the message that narcissists do not see their victims as people with feelings. They truly do not care about their victims in any form or fashion. So to understand the narcissist’s thought process, I am using that phrase to make certain this message is clear as it can make cutting a narcissist out of one’s life that much easier.

Much like everything, narcissism is a spectrum. A narcissist can have varying degrees of being harmful (Signs and symptoms). The first thing we need to understand about narcissists is that everyone is expendable and disposable. People are tools to boost their ego and fantasy world. The bigger the supply they have of tools, the more fulfilled the narcissist is.

Feelings do not matter to the narcissist unless this somehow affects their supply of “human tools”. Even then, the narcissist will fake feelings saying everything the human tools need to hear in order to keep their supply.

Narcissists are rampant on social media and internet forums. They can generate a fake world where they are terribly important, worshiped, praised, and coddled by followers through engagement. They can range from pretending to be someone they feel would be highly valued in knowledge and intelligence to a Romeo of sorts collecting lovers as a means to reinforce their personal worth. The narcissist works to control their human tools to constantly feed their ego. They gain a type of high from controlling others, especially if they manage to control those they feel are far above their personal and professional status in life…a type of “punching above their weight”.

In using the internet, the narcissist can hide behind anonymity only sharing what they want their human tools to see. It will always be just enough to be believable, not causing their tools to question them in the beginning. They will work to develop a trust based on lies so that their human tools will accept what they say without question. Deep questioning is something the narcissist wants to avoid. They will have pre-packaged answers ready and waiting for the light questions. They have worked hard to develop this online fantasy world in order for their human tool followers to boost their fragile egos.

They will not take responsibility for their actions. They may say, “I’m sorry.” but they will not actually mean it. They are saying the words the human tools need to hear in order to keep them around so they can continue to control them. They lie, and lie, and lie with expert skill. They have developed their skills over a long period of time working to determine which ways of deception are the most successful. They know exactly what to say, when to say it, and how to say it.

They feign victim-hood or even generate pretend problems to gain attention causing their human tools to feel valued and needed. They will also dole out compliments like candy…they will make you feel amazing and spend a vast amount of time convincing their tools how wonderful they are. Their human tools will in turn develop quickly a fierce sense of loyalty because of how amazing the narcissist has made them feel.

There is no reason to question the kind person on the other end of the screen when they have acted in ways you desire and stated everything the tool has ever wanted to hear from another human being.

Some narcissists will remind their tools of how kind and generous they have been in order to hide the fact they are manipulating them. It can be incredibly subtle. Those particular narcissists are inherently dangerous in that they can fully control their tools with ease because they are just so incredibly nice and charming. How could they ever be bad? They are not “bad” until the illusion falls and their fantasy world is threatened. They then resort to emotionally abusive measures to protect their fake world and image. Their ego is of the utmost importance. The abuse they give varies and can be subtle or incredibly pronounced.

Narcissists can not keep up the facade forever, especially if the human tools start to question.

What happens when something seems too good to be true and a human tool starts to question?

Abuse happens in varying degrees including some or all of the following…

The narcissist will lie saying there is not a problem. (either this satisfies or the tool questions further)

If it is a small mistake, the narcissist will fake an apology or come up with a reasonable answer (thought it’s likely a lie) to curtail further discussion.

The narcissist will then point out flaws in the tool’s behavior. (pushing blame so the tool shifts their behavior)

The narcissist will work to convince the current tool that they have mental problems including distorting their perception of reality through lies. (see: gaslighting)

The narcissist has already at this point quietly convinced previous and current tools that other tools are problematic. (this causes other tools to slander, stalk, and even harass others see: triangulation)

The narcissist will work to isolate their tools from talking to one another productively. They will play the victim convincing their other human tools that any evidence their current tool has is falsified.

The clever narcissist will take out of context conversations using that against their tools even falsifying emails, texts to show their current tool is abusive/mentally ill/liar/etc. (usually accusing them of the very things they do themselves)

The narcissist will engage in impossible arguments where they ignore questioning of their behavior and thus run in circles placing blame on their tools accusing them of things they are guilty of…

The narcissist, if they can no longer control their tools, will start a slander campaign including contacting friends, family, and workplace of the tools (in some extreme cases).

The narcissist, because image is important to them, will do everything they can to damage their tools’ reputations.

The narcissist may resort to blackmail and threats to ruin their tools including harassment directly or via proxy (other loyal tools).

The narcissist relies on their loyal tools to carry out work for them so they may continue to play the victim gaining further attention. This gives them a high from watching others destroy each other in the narcissist’s name.

The narcissist will also use social media to generate sock accounts to bully and demonize their human tools they can no longer control. They will stalk and harass their tools in the more severe cases.

Male narcissists often use the female tools to demonize the other female victims under the guise that those women tools calling out abuse are more likely to be believed than if the man spoke out. These men actively abuse the “always believe the victims” stance…thus feeding the slander campaign and further hurting the victims.

While all of this seems exhausting to healthy individuals, it is important to note that narcissists have a need to have their egos inflated by others. It is an uncontrollable need that can not be managed outside of professional help. Since the narcissist is incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions, rehabilitation is extremely unlikely. There are conflicting views on whether or not a narcissist can be cured but it largely has to do with the narcissist recognizing there is a problem. The narcissist has to want to change and realize they have issues. Recognizing this means they acknowledge they are flawed. This goes against everything a narcissist has tried to build with their fantasy world of self-importance. Facing the reality that they are not as important/wanted/needed/desired/etc. and have deep issues associated with self-worth, lies, and lack of true empathy would in many ways be detrimental to the narcissist. When the fantasy falls and the human tools see the narcissist for what they are, the damage has already been done, the abuse ensues and the narcissist will punish their tools.

The damage caused by the narcissist, even the most subtle of narcissists is incredibly substantial.

Victims of narcissists question everything in regard to their relationship with them. They have had their self-esteem destroyed and become so reliant on the narcissist and their interactions. Some victims lose their sense of self as they wonder how this could have happened to them. They look back at the things the narcissist accused them of hopefully recognizing they were being manipulated. Some victims feel incredible guilt as they learn that they have been implements of abuse towards the other victims being tools for the narcissist. Even if they were warned and ignored the warnings, they feel shame and foolish.

Victims of narcissists are inherently vulnerable as they developed a need for the narcissist. It is in the best interest of the victim to seek therapy to help them understand how this happened. What is of the utmost importance is that the victim realize the narcissist does not love or care about them. This revelation in itself is quite a blow. However, it can be freeing. It is much easier to cut a terrible person out of your life who never loved you than to hope that there can be some reconciliation. Victims have a danger of returning to the narcissist especially if they have developed a need for them. If they are willing to accept this false reality including the abuse the narcissist doles out to feed their need of the narcissist, they may return to the relationship. This is why therapy and accepting all evidence is exceedingly important for victims of narcissists. They need to question everything and accept the reality of the situation or they are at risk for falling back into the world of the narcissist. It is a vicious cycle of abuse if the narcissist is allowed to stay in their life.

What do we do to combat narcissism?

If possible, cut off all communication with the narcissist. Keep records of all texts, emails, conversations, and sock accounts for social media. If the narcissist starts a smear campaign, alert friends, family, and even work (in severe cases) that someone is trying to cause harm. Get advice from a lawyer (in severe cases) and start a paper trail. Document everything and give copies to trusted people. Rely on friends who have been known for years. Keep a list of friends and victims of the narcissist as they can be used as tools for abuse. Cut off communication with them. Realize that the narcissist can not harm people who do not care what they and their tools have to say. It takes a lot of will to ignore the slander and lies being told. The caring people in the life of the victim will not listen to slander and correct as it is heard. Trust those people and lean on them.

I can not emphasize enough how important it is for victims of narcissists to seek therapy. Therapists are experts who not only help navigate such difficult waters, but they are also teachers. Their lessons on narcissists are invaluable and can help prevent future engagement with other narcissists.

How to avoid narcissists and in turn not be a human tool?

Question everything. Accept all evidence. Realize social media and online forums are a hotbed breeding ground for predatory people including narcissists. These individuals will only show you what they want you to see. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Persistent yet polite questioning will reveal the narcissist. If you have not seen the full evidence with your eyes, do not take it at words alone. Ask for evidence and don’t be ashamed to do so. (I hope to have a separate article or a show soon about how to ask for evidence and question politely to avoid escalation)

Science has saved my sanity in dealing with narcissists. I question everything. I accept all evidence. I look at statements with scrutiny. I ask for evidence. I offer evidence to back up all of my statements. I see narcissists for what they are and educate myself on what they do. They do not care about me. This is not my fault. They are incapable of actual love…at least not love for anyone else, just themselves.

Arm yourself with knowledge and stay strong. There is no shame in therapy. If you feel you are a victim of a narcissist, please consider getting professional help. It will enlighten and educate.

Thank You For Reading,

Scientist Mel

As an aside…a perfect example of narcissistic behavior is described well in this music video by Henry Rollins, called LIAR

In this episode, I have an amazing chat with Quinn Gee founder of Magnolia Mental Health aka @CuntryCounselor on twitter. She discusses her work in LGBTQ, Racism trauma, PoC issues, as well as women’s issues. We dive into racism trauma, the lifespan of trans individuals, and the increasing need of therapy for people of non traditional lifestyles. Come hear our chat and learn about the good work she does.

]]>http://scientistmel.com/2018/04/08/heyscientistmel-ep-13-talking-therapy-with-quinn-gee/feed/0 In this episode, I have an amazing chat with Quinn Gee founder of Magnolia Mental Health aka @CuntryCounselor on […]
In this episode, I have an amazing chat with Quinn Gee founder of Magnolia Mental Health aka @CuntryCounselor on twitter. She discusses her work in LGBTQ, Racism trauma, PoC issues, as well as women’s issues. We dive into racism trauma, the lifespan of trans individuals, and the increasing need of therapy for people of non traditional lifestyles. Come hear our chat and learn about the good work she does.
Check out her clinic here: https://www.magnoliamhealth.com/

]]>ScientistMel.Comclean56:092288#HeyScientistMel Episode 12 Evolution of Education – Dr. Amanda Glazehttp://scientistmel.com/2018/03/26/heyscientistmel-episode-12-evolution-of-education-dr-amanda-glaze/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/03/26/heyscientistmel-episode-12-evolution-of-education-dr-amanda-glaze/#respondMon, 26 Mar 2018 00:48:48 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2280 This episode features Dr. Amanda Glaze aka EvoPhD on twitter! She discusses the current state of education, her work […]

]]>http://scientistmel.com/2018/03/26/heyscientistmel-episode-12-evolution-of-education-dr-amanda-glaze/feed/0 This episode features Dr. Amanda Glaze aka EvoPhD on twitter! She discusses the current state of education, her work […]
This episode features Dr. Amanda Glaze aka EvoPhD on twitter! She discusses the current state of education, her work in evolution education, as well as what we can do to boost science literacy.

]]>ScientistMel.Comclean1:08:192280The Pseudoscience of PETAhttp://scientistmel.com/2018/03/17/the-pseudoscience-of-peta/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/03/17/the-pseudoscience-of-peta/#respondSat, 17 Mar 2018 22:11:35 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2268PETA is widely known as an organization who claims to dedicate their work to saving animals. In reality, they kill […]

]]>PETA is widely known as an organization who claims to dedicate their work to saving animals. In reality, they kill more animals than save. The largest portion of their budget goes towards advertising. They can not afford to keep the animals they rescue, so they resort to euthanizing rather than funnel funds into adoption programs. PETA on twitter has blocked me. This was after a conversation I had with them asking them for their latest kill numbers…that thread for tweets can be found HERE

For this article…I am going to discuss the bad science PETA pushes in order to push their brand agendas.

The point I am going to discuss is their push for animal free testing as a viable option in breast cancer research. They have a blog post (PETA)stating there are many charities available in breast cancer research that don’t engage in animal testing. They say to not fund well established cancer research organizations and say to fund these groups instead (pcrm.org). These groups suggest vegetarian diets MIGHT prevent cancer…including a compound found in BROCCOLI

Let’s discuss this…

PETA suggests in vitro testing as well as computational models are sufficient in determining a treatment is safe for humans. The simple answer? NO. The reason? Because there are multiple factors that determine whether or not a compound is a viable candidate for oral or IV introduction. A computer simulation does not take into consideration liver processing (if oral), blood brain barrier issues, as well as any other interactions that may occur if the drug is processed via liver into potentially toxic forms.

Now in vitro testing..squirting drugs on cells is not the same as introducing the drug into the body. There are multiple pathways to consider when making a drug. The liver breaks down drugs into different forms. The mode of drug introduction has to be considered when determining if a drug is administered orally or intravenously.

The study PETA cites discusses a compound found in broccoli that has an effect on breast cancer. This is GREAT news! The downside? Eating broccoli …is not the same as squirting the compound directly onto cancer cells. It is also not the same as injecting the compound into your breast.

Let’s dive a bit deeper into this study…

They use different breast cancer cells including non cancerous breast cells…HERE

The data seems effective with the line of MCF-7 (a cancer I have worked with). The problem? There is no data for the normal cells. There is no information as to what this compound does to the non cancerous cells. Additionally…since it damages DNA, it might make it worse. The study specifically states that this compound could increase cancer activity.

PETA uses this study to push for vegetarianism without fully disclosing that the study is not sufficient nor does it fully support the idea that broccoli consumption kills cancer.

The FDA site discusses why we still need animal testing(HERE) The main reason for animal testing is so humans are not killed or further harmed by research. Scientists can not squirt or inject broccoli compounds into people until scientists know if it is going to hurt or cause further damage to people. Computer simulations are not going to give substantial confidence that scientists are not going to kill people or contribute to cancer formation like the SUL (broccoli compound) can possibly do. There are many similar compounds like the broccoli compound that cause DNA damage aka carcinogens which leads to cancer. Animal testing is necessary so we can see the breakdown of these compounds via the liver, their effectiveness if injected, and if they have ANY toxicity or harmful side effects. In vitro (test tube experiments) and computer simulations do not give us the holistic effect, but they reduce research time giving us an idea WHEN to test on animals and IF it is even a considerable option. This reduces animal testing but we can not eliminate it without jeopardizing people.

PETA is irresponsible and unrealistic pushing agendas that potentially harm people. They use bad science with unsubstantiated conclusions in order to reinforce their brand. Huffington Post has openly reported on the kill numbers associated with PETA in that they destroy more animals than they find homes. PETA has no known active program to re-acclimate animals from zoos to the wilderness…Nor do they have any programs to find homes/re-introduction for rescued animals from illegal testing.

I suggest PETA contribute the majority of their funds to research INSTEAD of copious amounts of advertising to push their brand. Funding productive research will help science gain better tech hoping to lead to removing the need for animal testing. I would also suggest PETA stop with frivolous lawsuits that require substantial funding and work to feed the pets they rescue as 88% of them are killed in their shelters. It would also behoove PETA to stop taking household pets and killing them. It would seem these lawsuits of stealing household pets and killing them is also a financial sink hole.

PETA is not a reputable charity…Nor do their kill rates show concern for the well being of animals. With no real financial support for the animals they “save”, no re-acclimation programs, no real funding for the shelters that house their rescues, or the adoption programs to find forever homes for pets…PETA proves to be a brand selling t-shirts and using bad science as part of their advertising. Consider giving to well established organizations that not only work to save animals but also spend money on feeding them, not killing them.

]]>http://scientistmel.com/2018/03/17/heyscientistmel-episode-11-_-chatting-pz-myers-death/feed/0This podcast episode features the incomparable PZ Myers where he and I have a chat about everything he does! Check […]twitter.com/pzmeyers and have a look at our live stream episode of #TheScienceof PZ Myers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzBW_y989CE&t=6s
Squishy Science Hugs,
Melody]]>ScientistMel.Comclean1:13:162256Science Communication, Language, and Perceptionhttp://scientistmel.com/2018/03/04/science-communication-language-perception/
http://scientistmel.com/2018/03/04/science-communication-language-perception/#respondSun, 04 Mar 2018 17:53:05 +0000http://scientistmel.com/?p=2244Communication is essential when it comes to relaying science content to the general population. Science has performed a substantial amount […]

]]>Communication is essential when it comes to relaying science content to the general population. Science has performed a substantial amount of research to show how people receive information and are influenced by language as well as bias.

Needless to say how content is presented to individuals of whom you are trying to inform can easily go one way or another. People can and do believe “profound BS” if they lack the ability to detect said BS. Using scientific terminology gives credibility to individuals even if words are misused. At the same time, too much difficult/technical “verbage” can dissuade people from listening.

How does one go about relaying information without sounding pompous or threatening but at the same time maintain authority without “dumbing down” content to a level of drivel?

Choose your words and mode of delivery carefully.

Scientists often fail at the task of relaying information in an accessible way for the general population to consume. Scientists also rely heavily on the written word to discuss their research and endeavors. Written word is daunting for the general population and considered less effective than actually speaking about the desired, communicated information.

When it comes to speaking, many scientists default to the assumption that everyone in the room understands the words they are saying. They also have had the substantial practice of using demanding scientific terminology in order to communicate with others in their field. This is a hard habit to break. Yet, speaking about science is far more effective to delivering content than just having the gen pop read it.

Online videos provide an easily consumable source of science information without overwhelming the lay population with intimidating articles.

Keep your bias in check.

Our language can affect our perception of the world. Our perception of the world certainly comes out in our use of language. We often default to thinking that everyone thinks, acts, and speaks the way we do. There is also the bias of assuming no one thinks, acts, and speaks the way we do in other circumstances. Sometimes our bias strongly shows when we speak.

Look at the words that you use. Pay attention to how you engage with people of a different gender/race/ability/age…etc. Everyone has bias. This does not make us bad people, but it does if we allow it to go unchecked. It is a good practice of self exploration to revisit a self assessment to determine what our biases of others are. There are online tests to help find our hidden bias.

Intelligence is also linked to language use. How a person uses their words, quote choices, and ability to communicate effectively influences the perception of intelligence or lack thereof. Knowing the ability of the person/group to whom you are speaking is also useful in how you should engage. Those who often fall easily for pseudoscience are receptive to “profound platitudes”…blanket statements with no substantial meaning.

Speak with authority but in simplistic terms.

The general population needs convincing that an individual has authority in a particular topic. Credentials help in this endeavor…however, terminology is key in asserting an authoritative stance in regards to a particular topic. With that said, it is important to note that oversimplifying language gives a perception of incompetence.

The general population tends to believe pseudoscience is solid science if a few technical words are tossed in to give it a semblance of credibility. A good sign of “fake science” is to see the same technical “verbage” pop up without layperson synonyms or any other related scientific terms. A pseudoscience pusher will not have the vocabulary of an authority. They will rely heavily on the same terms without providing multiple explanations using various scientific terminology and in simplified examples.

Speaking with authority does not mean difficult vocabulary. Speaking with authority means offering multiple and accessible explanations (not opinions or perspectives) for a particular science paper/topic.

If a person can not explain a topic simply and with accessible vocabulary in several different ways, they do not understand the concept well enough.

Remove yourself as a threat to a person’s belief system.

Confirmation bias is something everyone has on some level. Taking new information that potentially conflicts with core belief systems is exceedingly painful for many people. People tend to surround themselves with those who think similarly to them. There is comfort to be found in being a part of a tribe. This tribe helps people cope with loss, pain, and offers support in times of trouble. This tribe will have similar core beliefs that unite them. While there is some positive aspects of having a group who supports you, it becomes problematic when core beliefs cause issues for other people in the world. That is a topic another article.

Focusing on the tribe mentality and core beliefs…they actively accept evidence that reinforces these core belief systems. Sometimes this “evidence” is blatantly false to people outside of the tribe. People ignore belief contradicting facts because it goes against the safety of the tribe. They see the person presenting the facts as foreign and/or a threat. It is important to remove yourself as a threat to a person and their “tribe”.

Discuss the elephant in the room, state that we are people who care about others, and that it is ok for us to not have the same beliefs. Be caring and considerate allowing the person a space to both hold onto their beliefs and hear the evidence without fear of a fight.

I want to make a note that some beliefs are oppressive and harmful…ie: Nazis, sexism, racism, etc…It is important to note that people who subscribe to such thought processes can escalate to potentially dangerous levels. Many of these individuals are irrational and/or outright evil. This type of thinking has not shown to be overcome with reason alone as we have had entire wars over it as well as civil rights movements in order to overcome such oppressive thinking. Yet this is an another article topic for another time. I am focusing on the reachable and rational people.

Know when to walk away.

Sometimes the urge to keep correcting a person becomes quite strong. After trying to remove yourself as a threat to encourage someone to even listen to you, it is counterproductive to continue to push when someone starts pushing back. Offer the evidence. Be willing to talk about it another time. Be polite and kind in interacting with a resistant person. Leave the discussion before it escalates.

A fact resistant person is more likely to talk about the evidence later if you have respected their boundaries and left the discussion without aggression.

As a science communicator, it is important to me that I am approachable to anyone including people who do not share my perspectives and/or belief systems. The only time I shut out a person is if that individual becomes toxic, overtly aggressive, harmful, rude…etc. I refuse to belittle people who think differently from me. This is counter productive to my overall goal which is offering accessible science to anyone who is willing to learn.

Ask yourself, “what is my goal of presenting information.”

Ultimately this is where your type of engagement is influenced. This question will save a lot of time especially if the receptiveness of the resistant individual is known. There may be no point at all in engagement. I refuse to actively debate science resistant people if I have the knowledge they will never listen to me, are rude/aggressive, really just want to fight, and/or want a scientist to listen to them thus giving them a semblance of credibility. There is something to be said of not engaging with such individuals and in turn removing their platform. How does engaging with such individuals affect the perception others have of you?

Are others more likely to come to you for information or are you alienating people who would have seen you as an accessible authority to answer their questions respectfully?

With the previous logic stated, I would like to point out that challenging an idea without directly challenging a person is entirely acceptable and something that I do quite frequently in particular heavy pushers of pseudoscience with large followings. IE: Deepak Chopra, PETA, and GOOP. I will pick apart bad science, poorly performed studies, fake medical treatments, as well as predatory companies peddling nonsense to vulnerable people. This practice does not harm an individual but exposes evidence in a way to educate the masses and empower the individual.

The point? Challenging the practices of a large company is not the same as challenging John Doe on YouTube with 25 subscribers looking for a fight and someone to listen to him.

Science communication is desperately needed during this time where entire countries are subjected to rampant, out of control confirmation bias. Addressing how to properly effectively communicate with resistant individuals is essential in combating the rejection of facts. Shouting matches are not going to win this war fueled by ignorance and emotion. Stay calm, clear headed…know your goals and always default to kindness. It is free.

In summary…

Your chosen words matter

Video is easier than text

Keep your bias in check

Speak simplistically but with authority

Intelligence is perceived through language

Know your audience

Remove yourself as a threat

Know when to walk away

Question your motives and goals in presenting information

Choose your battles wisely not giving a platform to bad science

Thank You For Reading,

Scientist Mel

Like what I do? Get exclusive content just from buying me a coffee ($1/month)! PATREON